It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help centerplease edit the question. The main thing is that it's consistent with other forms of dating. Radiometric dating, for instance, will say that deeper levels of sediment are older than shallower levels of sediment.
It will give similar fossils similar ages, even when the fossils are widely separated. And one thing that the young creationists need to explain if they're going to be down on radiometric dating--why do all subterranean pieces of dead organic matter have lower relative abundances of Carbon than ones exposed to the atmosphere?
What is their proposed mechanism for these abundances changing? Radiometric dating is very reliable in theory - the decay of radioactive materials is very-very predictable.
But like any other bit of experimental physics "the difference between practice and theory is small Why is radiometric dating unreliable theory but large in practice. "Why is radiometric dating unreliable" creation rate of C14 and so the proportion in the atmosphere depends on the suns activity - so a lot of dates which assumed a constant rate are known to be wrong.
Why is radiometric dating unreliable now calibrate this out by looking at C14 in tree rings of a known age - but the charge of "C14 dates are wrong" is used by nutters sorry creationists either deliberately or in ignorance. This led to bodies of monks being discovered in europe with new world diseases being dated to before columbus. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. How reliable is Radiometric dating?
Young earth creationists dismiss radiometric dating as unreliable, whats the truth? Sven 1 6. May I ask, why its a bad "Why is radiometric dating unreliable" I didn't downvote, but I'm guessing whoever did has a couple of reasons in mind: It can be answered with just a "yes.
It would be much better if you included some specific objections that have been made and asked whether they are valid, and why. Why is radiometric dating unreliable didn't ask if radiometric dating is valid and my question can't be answered by yes? I asked specifically about reliability and limitations with the assumption, that the method itself is valid. OK, well I meant it can be answered with "it's reliable.
Keep in mind that we much prefer questions that show that the poster put some effort into formulating them, which yours doesn't.
If you like, we can discuss how to improve your question in Physics Chat. Physics Stack Exchange
Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30, One way this is done in many radioactive dating techniques is to use an .
that warranted more skepticism about their reliability for age dating. The main thing is that it's consistent with other forms of dating. Radiometric datingfor instance, will Why is radiometric dating unreliable that deeper levels of sediment are older.